DOCSLIB.ORG

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” Summary of Executive Order “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” which includes costly plans to further militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, curtail due process, and expand problematic detention and enforcement practices. The order will likely result in asylum seekers, families, children, and others being turned away and denied access to humanitarian protection guaranteed for decades under U.S. and international law. The order demands the construction of a contiguous wall along the nearly 2,000-mile southern border; provides additional resources to Border Patrol agents; drastically increases detention along and beyond the southern border; expands the use of expedited removal to the entire nation while limiting the use of discretion in deciding whom to deport; and outlines enforcement changes, including authorizing more state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Overall, the provisions in the order pose serious concerns for the protection and due process rights of those currently residing in the United States, communities along the U.S-Mexico border, and vulnerable populations seeking protection in the country. Additionally, the order would require tremendous additional funding that would increase the country's record-level spending on existing border security and interior enforcement measures. Construct an "Impassable" Southern Border The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take immediate steps to allocate available funds to build a contiguous, physical wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and to create a long-term funding plan for the wall. It also calls for more resources to be allocated to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including the hiring of 5,000 additional agents. Adding to the existing border fencing is superfluous and wasteful. As of early 2017, approximately 650 miles of border fence are already in place, including: . 350 miles of primary pedestrian fencing; . 300 miles of vehicle fencing; . 36 miles of secondary fencing behind the primary fencing; and . 14 miles of tertiary pedestrian fencing behind the secondary fence. Summary of Executive Order “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” | American Immigration Council | February 2017 The estimated average cost of the remaining segments of the border wall ranges from $15 to $25 billion, with each mile of fencing costing $16 million. The head of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 16,000 Border Patrol agents which endorsed President Trump during his campaign, said, “We do not need a wall along the entire 2,000 miles of border.” In order to build the wall, Congress will have to appropriate significant additional funding. It is unclear if Congress is willing to spend many billions of dollars or incur the additional yearly costs for fence maintenance and upkeep. Increase the Use of Detention at the Border and in the Interior The order, if funded, will massively expand the use of detention. Individuals merely suspected of violating immigration law can now be apprehended and detained, pending further proceedings, according to the administration's policy announced in the order. In addition, the order directs DHS to detain all individuals in removal proceedings to the maximum extent of the law, regardless of whether they are merely awaiting their court hearing or have a final order of deportation. It also directs the termination of “catch and release.” This term refers to the practice of releasing non-Mexican migrants from detention while they await their removal hearings, which, contrary to the language in the order, DHS ended in 2006. This dramatic shift in the use of detention would impose tremendous due process and humanitarian costs on immigrant families and communities, not only at the border, but throughout the country. Detained immigrants are the least likely to have counsel to help them navigate the immigration court system; from 2007-2012, only 14 percent of detainees acquired legal counsel, compared to two-thirds of non-detained immigrants. Expand Detention Capacity The order further directs DHS to immediately construct detention facilities along the southern border, where asylum officers and immigration judges will be assigned to conduct interviews and removal proceedings. The expanded use of mandatory detention as described in the order is not feasible with the current number of detention beds. Congress has directed ICE to maintain 34,000 detention beds and appropriated funds to pay for them. Yet, as of the fall of 2016, ICE was far over capacity, with more than 40,000 people in immigration detention. Construction and maintenance costs for new detention facilities would be exorbitant; spending on ICE’s 34,000 detention beds costs taxpayers over $2 billion each year. Since the federal government is operating under a Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 continuing resolution until April 28, 2017, it is doubtful that sufficient funds currently exist to implement these plans. Moreover, additional funds would likely be needed in order to assign asylum officers and immigration judges to more detention facilities. Yet, there is already a shortage of officers and judges in the country. The Executive Page 2 of 4 Summary of Executive Order “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” | American Immigration Council | February 2017 Office for Immigration Review has been unable to hire the number of immigration judges that Congress appropriated funding for in FY 2017. It is unclear whether asylum officers or immigration judges would be deemed exempt from a January 23, 2017, executive memorandum authorizing a government-wide hiring freeze. Expand Expedited Removal The order directs DHS to dramatically expand the use of “expedited removal,” a process that permits immigration officers to quickly deport certain noncitizens without seeing an immigration judgeoften in as little as 24 hours. The order could permit immigration officers to apply expedited removal throughout the country to all individuals who unlawfully entered the United States and cannot prove to DHS that they have been continuously present for the previous two years.1 Prior policies limited the use of expedited removal to border regions (broadly defined as within 100 miles of any U.S. border) and to individuals who were apprehended within 14 days of entry to the United States. Once implemented, the order will eviscerate due process for large numbers of undocumented individuals in the United States, even those with family ties and deep roots in our communities, like Dreamers. The United States Commission on International and Religious Freedom—an independent, bipartisan federal commission —extensively documented how expedited removal sends many asylum seekers back into danger without a meaningful chance to present their claim to a judge. Local Law Enforcement Acting as Immigration Officials under the 287(g) Program The order also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to increase the number of 287(g) agreementsa program where DHS deputizes select state and local law enforcement officers to perform the functions of federal immigration agents under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Deputized officers are authorized to interview individuals to determine their immigration status; check DHS databases for information on individuals; issue ICE "detainers" to hold them until ICE takes custody; and issue a Notice to Appear (NTA), the official charging document that begins the immigration court removal process. Problems with the 287(g) program are well-documented. A March 2010 report by the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) found, among other things, that ICE and its local law enforcement partners had not complied with the terms of their 287(g) agreements; that the evaluation parameters for deputized officers contradicted the stated objectives of the program; and that the program was poorly supervised by ICE and needed additional oversight. Under the Obama administration, the program was significantly reduced and ended agreements that had allowed deputized officers to interrogate and arrest alleged noncitizens encountered in 1. The extent to which DHS will expand expedited removal was not specified in the executive order, but will be announced in a forthcoming Notice in the Federal Register. Page 3 of 4 Summary of Executive Order “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” | American Immigration Council | February 2017 the field who they believe violated federal immigration laws. In other words, agreements could only deputize officials to act as immigration officials in jails rather than in the field. The executive order directs DHS to establish more agreements that are structured to maximize the enforcement of federal immigration laws, but it is unclear what other changes may be involved. The 287(g) expansion will require additional funds from Congress to pay for local law enforcement training and ICE supervision of the program. Conduct Removal Proceedings Outside of the U.S. The order instructs DHS to ensure that applicants for admission arriving on land from Mexico and Canada are returned to the country from which they approached the United States, pending a formal removal proceeding. In order to do this, there will presumably need to be cooperation from Mexico and Canada. It is unclear how exactly this would be implemented, but the possibility
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tracking the Biden Agenda on Immigration Enforcement
    SPECIAL REPORT TRACKING THE BIDEN AGENDA ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT by Jorge Loweree and Aaron Reichlin-Melnick About the American Immigration Council The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. Through its research and analysis, the American Immigration Council provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with information about how the immigration system works, the impact of policy proposals, and the crucial role that immigration plays in our communities and workplaces. Visit us at www.AmericanImmigrationCouncil.org and www.ImmigrationImpact.com. About the Authors Jorge Loweree is the Director of Policy at the American Immigration Council, where he directs the Council’s administrative and legislative advocacy and leads the Council’s efforts to provide lawmakers, policymakers, advocates, and the general public with accurate and timely information about the role of immigrants in the United States. Previously, Jorge spent ten years in a variety of positions with the U.S. House of Representatives, most recently as Senior Counsel for Immigration Law and Policy, working on a wide range of enforcement and benefits issues. Jorge holds a J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School and Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from the Saint Mary’s University. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick is Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Council, where he works primarily on immigration court issues and the intersection of immigration law and policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019
    Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019 MIKE GUO SEPTEMBER 2020 INTRODUCTION • ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) engages in initiated 29 percent more intakes into immigration immigration enforcement actions to prevent unlawful detention, with detentions of aliens from Mexico entry into the United States and to apprehend and and the Northern Triangle of Central America repatriate aliens who have violated or failed to comply accounting for 82 percent of all detentions. with U.S. immigration laws. The primary responsibility • DHS performed 9.5 percent more removals in 2019 for the enforcement of immigration law within DHS than in 2018, with about 43 percent of removals rests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and involving aliens who had a prior criminal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CBP conviction. primarily enforces immigration laws along the borders and at ports of entry (POEs) and ICE is responsible for ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PROCESSES interior enforcement and most detention and removal operations. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Determinations of Inadmissibility (USCIS) adjudicates applications and petitions for All aliens seeking admission at a POE are subject to immigration and naturalization benefits. inspection. OFO officers conduct these inspections at designated POEs and at pre-clearance locations at The 2019 Immigration Enforcement Actions Annual Flow Report, certain foreign ports. Applicants for admission who are authored by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics determined to be inadmissible may be permitted to (OIS), presents information on DHS immigration voluntarily withdraw their application for admission enforcement actions during 2019.1 This includes and return to their home country, processed for determinations of inadmissibility by CBP Office of expedited removal, referred to an immigration judge Field Operations (OFO) officers, apprehensions by CBP (IJ) for removal proceedings, processed for a visa U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues
    Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues Lisa M. Seghetti, Coordinator Section Research Manager (name redacted) Analyst in Domestic Security (name redacted) Analyst in Domestic Security (name redacted) Specialist in Immigration Policy September 28, 2005 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33106 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues Summary Border security has emerged as an area of public concern, particularly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Although recent public concerns pertaining to border security may be attributed to the threat of potential terrorists coming into the country, past concerns that centered around drug and human smuggling and the illegal entry of migrants remain important issues. As Congress passes legislation to enhance border security (e.g., P.L. 109-13) and the Administration puts into place procedures to tighten border enforcement, concerns over terrorists exploiting the porous southwest border continue to grow. The U.S. border with Mexico is some 2,000 miles long, with more than 800,000 people arriving from Mexico daily and more than 4 million commercial crossings annually. The United States and Mexico are linked together in various ways, including through trade, investment, migration, tourism, environment, and familial relationships. Mexico is the second most important trading partner of the United States and this trade is critical to many U.S. industries and border communities. In an effort to facilitate the legitimate flow of travel and trade, the governments of the United States and Mexico signed the U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuc Vu, Director
    Cuc Vu, Director July 3, 2019 Submitted via email OMB USCIS Desk Officer [email protected] Re: Agency USCIS, OMB Control Number 1615-0116 - Public Comment Opposing Changes to Fee Waiver Eligibility Criteria, Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for Fee Waiver FR Doc. 2019-11744, Filed 6-5-19; 84 FR 26137 Dear Desk Officer: The City of Seattle (“the City”) submits this comment in response to the proposed revision of a currently approved collection published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in their Agency Information Collection Notice published on June 5, 2019. We are responding to the lack of response to the public comments previously submitted on April 5, 2019 and to address the inadequacy of responses by USCIS to comments submitted in response to their Notice of Revision of Currently Approved Collection published on September 28, 2018. The City of Seattle continues to strongly oppose the proposed rule to modify Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver. The City of Seattle created the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (OIRA) in 2012 to improve the lives of Seattle’s immigrant and refugee families. Through OIRA, the City of Seattle funds and coordinates two naturalization programs called the New Citizen Campaign (NCC) and the New Citizen Program (NCP) to help an estimated 75,000 Seattle-area legal permanent residents (“LPR”) become U.S. citizens. Since its inception in 1997, NCP has served over 19,000 people, provided naturalization assistance to over 12,300 LPRs, successfully naturalized 9,500 LPRs, and provided over 90,000 hours of citizenship instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Border Narrative at the Expense of Asylum Seekers
    Woods: Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Woods camera ready (Do Not Delete) 1/18/2020 12:00 PM BORDER MYTHS: HOW U.S. POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE CONTROLLING THE BORDER NARRATIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CINDY S. WOODS* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 82 I. TRUMP’S BORDER WALL IMPERATIVE ...................................... 84 II. INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES’ APPROACH TO ASYLUM SEEKERS ................................... 87 A. International Law Obligations to Asylum Seekers ....... 88 1. The Non-Refoulement Principle ............................. 88 a. Non-Rejection ................................................... 89 b. Access to Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures ................................................ 90 B. U.S. Interpretations of International Obligations ........ 91 1. Exclusion of the Non-Rejection Principle ............. 92 2. Punitive Measures for Illegal Entrants ................. 93 3. Expedited Removal and the Credible Fear Process ............................................................... 94 III. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL THE BORDER NARRATIVE ............................................................. 96 A. Port of Entry Denials .................................................. 96 B. CBP Abuse at the Border .......................................... 102 C. Increased Prosecution of Illegal Border Crossers ... 107 * J.D. Georgetown University Law
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Publication
    LATINO IMMIGRANTS IN THE WINDY CITY: New Trends in Civic Engagement Authors: Judith Boruchoff Katz Center for Mexican Studies, University of Chicago Oscar A. Chacón National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities Susan R. Gzesh Human Rights Program, University of Chicago Amalia Pallares Latin American and Latino Studies Program University of Illinois at Chicago Rebecca Vonderlack-Navarro School of Social Work University of Chicago Rapporteur’s report by: Amy Shannon Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Editors: Xóchitl Bada University of Illinois at Chicago Oscar A. Chacón National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities Jonathan Fox University of California, Santa Cruz Authors: Judith Boruchoff, Oscar A. Chacón, Susan R. Gzesh, Amalia Pallares, Amy Shannon, and Rebecca Vonderlack-Navarro Copyeditor: Leah Florence Series Editors: Xóchitl Bada, Jonathan Fox, and Andrew Selee Coordinators: Kate Brick and Robert Donnelly www.wilsoncenter.org/migrantparticipation Preferred citation: Bada, Xóchitl, Oscar A. Chacón, and Jonathan Fox, Eds. Latino Immigrants in the Windy City: New Trends in Civic Engagement, Reports on Latino Immigrant Civic Engagement, No. 6. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 2010. © 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Cover images: At top, members of the honor guard of the Club Ciudad Hidalgo (Michoacán) hometown association participate in a ceremony commemorating the birth of Mexican President Benito Juárez at the Plaza de las Américas in Chicago, IL, on March 21, 2009. At bottom, dancers affiliated with Ballet Folclórico de Víctor Soria are photographed at the same ceremony. (Photos by Claudio Ugalde) CONTENTS PREFACE 5 PROLOGUE 6 Chicago Community Dialogue: A Step toward Stronger Transnational Collaboration Oscar A.
    [Show full text]
  • Mexican and Central American Asylum and Credible Fear Claims Background and Context
    MEXICAN AND CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM AND CREDIBLE FEAR CLAIMS Background and Context By Sara Campos, Esq. and Joan Friedland, Esq. Special Report | May 2014 MEXICAN AND CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM AND CREDIBLE FEAR CLAIMS BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ABOUT THE AUTHORS Sara Campos, Esq. is a writer, lawyer, and consultant specializing in immigration and refugee issues. Before working independently, she was a Staff Attorney for the National Immigration Law Center and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. She also taught Refugee Law at Golden Gate University and USF Law Schools. Joan Friedland, Esq., was Managing Attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Washington, D.C. until 2011. She worked for many years with non-profits and in private practice in New Mexico and Florida, practicing primarily in the areas of civil rights, immigration, and criminal law. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and currently lives in New Mexico. ABOUT THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL The American Immigration Council’s policy mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, the Immigration Council provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy in U.S. society. Our reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policymakers. Our staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers, and the media. We are a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office. Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org and our blog at www.immigrationimpact.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Billing Code: 9111-97-P DEPARTMENT OF
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/20/2021 and available online at Billing Code: 9111-97-P federalregister.gov/d/2021-17779, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 208 and 235 [CIS No. 2692-21; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0012] RIN 1615-AC67 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Parts 1003, 1208, and 1235 [A.G. Order No. 5116-2021] RIN 1125-AB20 Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively, “the Departments”) are proposing to amend the regulations governing the determination of certain protection claims raised by individuals subject to expedited removal and found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. Under the proposed rule, such individuals could have their claims for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “the Act”) (“statutory withholding of removal”), or protection under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) initially adjudicated by an asylum officer within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Such individuals who are granted relief by the asylum officer would be entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under CAT, as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework
    Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework Updated October 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45314 SUMMARY R45314 Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework October 8, 2019 The federal government has broad authority over the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) seeking to enter the United States. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government Hillel R. Smith may exclude such aliens without affording them the due process protections that traditionally Legislative Attorney apply to persons physically present in the United States. Instead, aliens seeking entry are entitled only to those procedural protections that Congress has expressly authorized. Consistent with this broad authority, Congress established an expedited removal process for certain aliens who have arrived in the United States without permission. In general, aliens whom immigration authorities seek to remove from the United States may challenge that determination in administrative proceedings with attendant statutory rights to counsel, evidentiary requirements, and appeal. Under the streamlined expedited removal process created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and codified in Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, certain aliens deemed inadmissible by an immigration officer may be removed from the United States without further administrative hearings or review. INA Section 235(b)(1) applies only to certain aliens who are inadmissible into the United States because they either lack valid entry documents or have attempted to procure their admission through fraud or misrepresentation. The statute generally permits the government to summarily remove those aliens if they are arriving in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP
    Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP Daniel E. Martínez The University of Arizona Josiah Heyman The University of Texas at El Paso Jeremy Slack The University of Texas at El Paso August 24, 2020 CMS Essays, https://cmsny.org/publications/border-enforcement-developments-since-1993- and-how-to-change-cbp/ Executive Summary Enforcement along the US-Mexico border has intensified significantly since the early 1990s. Social scientists have documented several consequences of border militarization, including increased border-crosser deaths, the killing of more than 110 people by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents over the past decade, and expanded ethno-racial profiling in southwestern communities by immigration authorities. Less attention has been paid to the pervasive and routine mistreatment migrants experience on a daily basis in CBP custody. This paper traces major developments in border enforcement to three notable initiatives: the “prevention-through-deterrence” strategy, the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Consequence Delivery System, initiated in 2011. Despite the massive buildup in enforcement, CBP has operated with little transparency and accountability to the detriment of migrants. The paper provides an overview of the findings of nongovernmental organizations and social scientists regarding migrant mistreatment while in CBP custody. It then highlights important shifts in migration patterns over the past decade, as well as changes in border enforcement efforts during the Trump administration. It discusses how these transformations affect migrants’ everyday encounters with CBP officials. The paper concludes by providing specific recommendations for improving CBP conduct. Its core theme is the need to emphasize and inculcate lessons of appropriate police behavior, civil rights, and civil liberties in training and recruiting agents and in setting responsibilities of supervisors and administrators.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration: Analysis of the Major Provisions Ofthe REAL ID Act of 2005
    Order Code RL32754 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Immigration: Analysis of the Major Provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 Updated May 25, 2005 Michael John Garcia, Margaret Mikyung Lee, and Todd Tatelman Legislative Attorneys American Law Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Immigration: Analysis of the Major Provisions the REAL ID Act of 2005 Summary During the 108th Congress, a number of proposals related to immigration and identification-document security were introduced, some of which were considered in the context of implementing recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) and enacted pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458). At the time that the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was adopted, some congressional leaders reportedly agreed to revisit certain immigration and document-security issues in the 109th Congress that had been dropped from the final version of the act. The REAL ID Act of 2005 was first introduced as H.R. 418 by Representative James Sensenbrenner on January 26, 2005, and passed the House, as amended, on February 10, 2005. The text of House-passed H.R. 418 was subsequently added to H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, which was introduced by Representative Jerry Lewis on March 11, 2005, and passed the House, as amended, on March 16, 2005. H.R. 1268 passed the Senate on April 21, 2005, as amended, on a vote of 99- 0, but did not include the REAL ID Act provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the President's Border Security And
    Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 Homeland Security February 20, 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR: Kevin McAleenan Acting Commissioner U.S. Customs and Border Protection Thomas D. Homan Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Lori Scialabba Acting Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Joseph B. Maher Acting General Counsel Dimple Shah Acting Assistant Secretary for International Affairs Chip Fulghum Acting Undersecretary for Management FROM: John Kelly Secretary SUBJECT: Implement e President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies This memorandum implements the Executive Order entitled "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements," issued by the President on January 25 , 2017, which establishes the President's policy regarding effective border security and immigration enforcement through faithful execution of the laws of the United States. It implements new policies designed to stem illegal immigration and facilitate the detection, apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens who have no lawful basis to enter or remain in the United States. It constitutes guidance to all Department personnel, and supersedes all existing conflicting policy, directives, memoranda, and other guidance regarding this subject matter- to the extent of the conflict-except as otherwise expressly stated in this memorandum. www.dhs.gov A. Policies Regarding the Apprehension and Detention of Aliens Described in Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The President has determined that the lawful detention of aliens arriving in the United States and deemed inadmissible or otherwise described in section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) pending a final determination of whether to order them removed, including determining eligibility for immigration relief, is the most efficient means by which to enforce the immigration laws at our borders.
    [Show full text]